Organizational School Management - Essay Example

? School: Topic: LEVEL 6: EMPOWERMENT AND CONTROL Lecturer: LEVEL 6: EMPOWERMENT AND CONTROL Introduction Writing on organisational school management, Hill & Saranson (2006) stressed that in modern times, organisational management has moved beyond just the basics of selling products and services to make profits into a more resilient and formidable corporate structure that demands attention with several variables of competitive engagements. To this end, companies and businesses no longer go about their duties as if they were all that mattered in the trade they are involved in but take into consideration what is happening with other competitors and what is actually going on in the larger industry in which they operate. There can therefore be three major levels of organisational engagements namely micro, which deal with engagements within a given organisation, meso, which touches on engagements within other organisations, and macro, which has to do with engagements within the larger industry (Kahn, 1992). In this paper, various strategies and policies that are used by organisations at the micro level, and as influenced by meso and macro level engagements are discussed to find ways in which organisations strive to stay competitive in the changing organisational box. Generally, studies have showed that in today’s changing organisational box, organisations need to deploy much empowerment to their employees at the micro level, whiles the organisations themselves ensure that they are in touch and in control of affairs at the meso and macro levels of engagement (Lawshe, 1985). This win, a win-win situation is created to ensure that both the organisations and their employees are poised for success. The changing face of the organisational box The organisational box that used to have only one face has now changed into a more complex paradigm; involving much engagement with the larger world for organisations that want to be competitive (Macey et al, 2009). Generally, Rothbard (2001) notes that three major variables of today’s business environment that must be expected are uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity. These variables have come in as a result of the way and manner in which businesses must engage each other in healthy competition to ensure success. Generally, today’s business environment is seeing more of uncertainty because of the rapid manner in which the quest for demand from consumers come in. today, consumers have been identified to have much power in deciding what the business world should produce for them by way of products and services (Maslach, Jackson & Leiter, 1997). Because of this, one is not able to predict a specific line of business conduct that will meet the demands of tomorrow (Macey & Schneider, 2008). What is more, there are similarities and overlaps in the roles that employees must play in order to ensure that they stay on top of their duties and the dictates of the business environment. This is what results in ambiguity for most organisations that would have otherwise preferred a more stabilized definition of roles for their employees (Kamalanabhan, Sai & Mayuri, 2009). Again, there is complexity at almost all levels of engagement where the need to both give power to employees and take power out of them exists. Employee empowerment as a competitive necessity To survive in the changing business environment, it is important that organisations adopt a strategy that promotes the habit of thinking outside the box for their employees, managers, and all other stakeholders; even external stakeholders such as suppliers. To make this possible, it is important that employee empowerment be taken up by the various in a very systematic manner that has been identified below. Human Capital Development The first approach to employee empowerment for organisations that want to implement a systematic approach to empowerment is human capital development. Human capital development generally involves the identification of various competences and weaknesses of employees for the purpose of mastering the competencies and strengthening the weaknesses (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). The reason it is important to take this as a first step is that empowerment involves much of engagement and without proper development of the human capital base of employees chances are that they will not be in a better position to properly handle the tasks and roles that are left in their hands (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002). While engaging in human capital development, it is crucial and important for the organisation to define its personal goals as well as the competition it faces. This way, the organisation can know the specific areas of human capital to tap and develop within their human resource base, and the models of assessment to use in measuring the rate of adaptability to the development program (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006). In recent studies, it was showed that human capital development can serve as a major source of intrinsic motivation for employees as it helps in making them more useful at post (Saks, 2008). Once employees feel useful also, they become satisfied with their roles and eventually take the all important decision of retaining their positions for very long time (Russell & Barrett, 2009). Employee Engagement Employee engagement has now been used as the commonest solution to solving the puzzle of ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity, whereby employees are empowered to think outside the box (Saks, 2006). This is because through employee engagement, employees are given the independence to take charge of organisational level responsibilities and tasks that are defined to them (Azen & Budescu, 2003). This way, employees are left to be engaged in a self-management practice whereby they become equipped and empowered to be involved in the core roles and responsibilities of managers. They also become equipped to become part of decision making at the organisational level. The reason employee engagement remains an important aspect of modern day management of organisations is that graduates of today, and for that matter employees of today are now seeking ways of becoming more useful to themselves and the organisations they serve (Benet-Martinez & Oishi, 2008). To this end, they no longer want be part of a dogmatized system where they are controlled around and instructed to act only on what things and issues that seem right to their superiors. Employee engagement therefore helps in creating the needed liberation for employees to come on board with their ingenuities and to exhibit their unique potential as modern day graduates. This way, the employees tend to see themselves as part of the larger success of their companies and become motivated to record such successes (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004). Staying in control out of control through critical thinking To deploy employee empowerment, which is today seen as a competitive necessity is more like taking control out of the main organisational leaders or employer. However, it is still possible that the leader and or employer will stay in control while engaging in employee empowerment. To achieve it, it is important to exhibit critical thinking through two major means as identified in literature as strategic planning and situational leadership (Avery, McKay, & Wilson, 2007). Strategic Planning Strategic planning is a multi-complexity of task demanding generally that organisations put in place structures and programs that identify the needs of the organisations and rightly assign interventions for meeting these needs (Russell & Barrett, 2009). Generally, organisations that implement and use strategic planning are very much less likely to have a problem with employee empowerment especially when it comes to situations where employee empowerment may keep them out of control. This is because through strategic planning, the organisation sets a confine or scope of operation for the employee, while allowing the employee to be engaged in his or her position of work (Kahn, 1990). Strategic planning also ensures that employees act and operate according to specific lines of engagement that suit the interest of the organisation at the meso level rather than leaving out the employees to be engaged for their personal and selfish interests. In effect, once the employment empowerment through human capital development and employee engagement will be to the benefit of the organisation rather than the employee, the organisation stays in control of the outcome of the empowerment that is executed (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006). Situational leadership Leadership is an important factor in the quest for organisations to stay in control, while engaging in employee empowerment. This is because leadership generally defines the destiny of an organisation through directions, aims and visions that the leader seeks to aspire for the organisation (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). Depending on the leadership style in place however, the quest to staying in control may either be successful or a failure. In this, Macey et al. (2009) have admonished the importance of situational leadership in bringing about control. This is because in situational leadership, leaders are given the freedom to be dynamic in their leadership practice, even in the way in which they approach some of the commonest problems that face employees such as stress, in ensuring that they use only the kind of leadership style that best solves a prevailing situation (Lazarus & Monato, 2011). By extension, a leader who identifies the need to delegate more powers to an employee as a way of equipping employee engagement would feel free to do so without thinking of whether or not delegating leadership is his style of leadership. At the same time, a leader will be free to be autocratic in certain situations as a way of limiting powers from given employees without necessarily having to be an authoritarian. Conclusion There are several important points that have been developed out of the discussions that have been had above. Out of the various points made, a number of convincing conclusions can be made, based on which organisational level decision making can be taken. In the first place, it can be concluded that employee empowerment is now the code for unearthing competitive advantage. This is because according to the discussions, it can be established or deduced that the employee in today’s business environment is the dictator and driver of the organisational bus. The direction that the bus heads and the speed at which it drives therefore depends on the employee. It is not surprising that in a recent study, Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002) found that employee satisfaction directly leads to customer satisfaction but customer satisfaction does not lead to employee satisfaction. This means that there should constantly be a means of empowering employees to take up their place in today’s corporate environment. Secondly, it can be concluded that once employees will be empowered without the need to ensuring that the organisation itself is empowered to stay in control, the control gained by employees will make them more powerful than their organisations, making them take control of the organisations entirely. It is therefore important that the organisations use critical thinking procedures such as strategic planning and situational leadership to stay in control. References Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. 2007. Engaging the aging workforce: The relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1542-1556. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1542 Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. 2003. The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129-148. Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. 2008. Positive organisational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organisations. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 29, 147-154. doi:10.1002/job.515 Benet-Martinez, V., & Oishi, S. 2008. Culture and personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin, Eds. , Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 542-567. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hill, K.T., & Saranson, S.B, 2006. The relation of test anxiety and defensiveness to test and school performance over the elementary school years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 31(2), 1–76. Lazarus, A. M., and Monato A., 2011. Stress and Coping: an Anthology. New York: Columbia University Press, 26-31. Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. 2006. ‘Same Same’ But Different? Can Work Engagement Be Discriminated from Job Involvement and Organisational Commitment? European Psychologist, 112, 119-127. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. 2002. Business unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268. Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. 2004. History and use of relative importance indices in organisational research. Organisational Research Methods, 73, 238-257. doi:10.1177/1094428104266510 Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 334, 692-724. doi:10.2307/256287 Kahn, W. A. 1992. To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321-349. doi:10.1177/001872679204500402 Kamalanabhan, T. J., Sai, L. P., & Mayuri, D. 2009. Employee engagement and job satisfaction in the information technology industry. Psychological Reports, 105, 759-770. Lawshe, C. H. 1985. Inferences from personnel tests and their validity. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 70, 237-238. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.237 Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organisational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11, 3-30. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. 2009. Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444306538 Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. 1997. Maslach Burnout Inventory: Third edition. In C. P. Zalaquett, & R. Wood Eds.. Evaluating stress: A book of resources pp. 191-218. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684. doi:10.2307/3094827 Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. 2009. Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 805-819. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.805 Saks, A. M. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169 Saks, A. M. 2008. The meaning and bleeding of employee engagement: How muddy is the water? Industrial and Organisational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 40-43. Read More